Environment Committee on Nov. 20th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Chatel, you have about 20 seconds of speaking time left.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I'd like to say something about the point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The question rounds took place this afternoon, Ms. Chatel. We're no longer there.

Ms. Chatel, you have 20 seconds to make a statement, a comment, or to ask a question.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good that we clarified the question.

Mr. Ngan, you said that the additional measures that have been tabled before Parliament will make it possible to achieve the objectives. In the report, it's clearly stated that additional measures need to be put in place.

Can you tell us about any possible solutions or other measures you're currently exploring?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we won't have time to get the answer to your question.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I think my colleague cut me off because he didn't want to hear the answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Pauzé will perhaps ask the same question.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor for three minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Earlier, I mentioned that small modular reactors are designed to power the oil sands industry. Something else along the same lines is the clean electricity regulations. Several exemptions, extension programs and other loopholes are designed to allow increased and prolonged use of fossil fuels.

Commissioner, in your expert opinion, even if the government were to hurry, wouldn't the clean electricity regulations allow for further emissions reductions?

I'll give you our suggestions. If these regulations didn't allow fossil fuel generation beyond 2035, if the emissions standards were strict and didn't rely on offsets, if there were interim targets between now and 2035, and, finally, if the framework proposed a performance standard for existing fossil fuel-fired generators before 2035, it seems to me that we'd have a real program, i.e., one that would enable us to achieve our objectives.

What do you think?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I am evaluating current requirements, not those that may be implemented in the future.

What I can say is that, in our report 8, we analyzed the target of 90% of electricity generated from renewable, non-emitting sources.

In the long term, the target is 100%. In the federal sustainable development strategy, the target for clean electricity production from non-emitting sources is 100% in the long term.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Is this feasible, despite all the loopholes that are allowed?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

You can ask the department officials about that. In theory, the long-term target is 100%, and it's 90% by 2030.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

All right.

The report also mentions the fact that the government has missed opportunities to improve transparency. This is something that hasn't been addressed to date.

Can you tell us about it?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

The third part of our report relates to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. We reviewed the December 2023 progress report, and found that the government could improve transparency. This lack of transparency is not new. The Government of Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada can improve the transparency of their progress reports, modelling and projections.

It is very important that Canadians know that the calculations, projections and results are reliable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bachrach, you have the floor.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, I'll repeat the question with which I ended my last round, and that was around whether any of the government's strategies, in your view, have become more stringent as the result of consultation.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I think the department would have a better sense of how they've changed. Do you mean by strategies or measures?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I mean any of the tools.

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Departments know their internal deliberations as to whether they get more stringent or less after consultation, so I would suggest that the department answer that question.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Go ahead, Mr. Ngan.

[Vincent Ngan]

There are 144 measures under the emissions reduction plan, and therefore some calibration will be made. I'm not able to say what is more stringent.

That being said, the carbon price is more stringent every year.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Commissioner, you mentioned carbon budgets previously. Could you very briefly describe what the advantages of a carbon budget approach would be?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

We're taking our mandate under the act seriously by reporting annually on Canada's progress. Carbon budgeting is another way of essentially annualizing a long-term problem with short-term deliverables. It's not dissimilar to the work that our office does on the financial side. It's essentially checking whether things add up year by year in terms of a pathway.

I mentioned earlier the curve in order to get from here to 2030 and then from there to 2050. You segment that out into annual budgets that say that Canada as a country will have this amount as a maximum for carbon emissions for this year or for these sectors. You could break it down by sector as well. Those are essentially the basics of carbon budgeting.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

How many G7 countries utilize a carbon budgeting approach?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

That's a good question. I don't know how many, but Ms. Leach knows. There's at least one that we both know of, but I don't know if there are others.

[Kimberley Leach]

I don't know all of them, but the U.K. has a very successful carbon budget.